Archive for the ‘Medicine and health’ Category
If you look at this chart you’ll see that average Medicaid spending per adult (which I presume are those adults who don’t qualify for Medicare) was only $3,247 per year in FY2011.
That’s a lot less money per enrollee than the cost of Obamacare insurance policies. Plus Medicaid covers 100% of medical expenses, not like crappy Obamacare plans that come with huge deductibles and copays and where you have to fight with the insurance company over every bill to avoid being ripped off.
Less expensive per enrollee plus 100% free coverage plus better customer service.
So why can’t scrap our private-insurance-based health system and just go with Medicaid?
Robert Frank, an economics professor from Cornell whom I respect quite a bit and I have mentioned many times before in my blogs (and he may even be a secret believer in HBD) endorses “Medicare for all” in a New York Times op-ed, and I agree with it.
Isn’t there any common sense in this world? If you are/were a man, you shouldn’t be allowed to compete in women’s sports, no matter how much weird surgeries and hormone treatments that you’ve had.
Also, we need to stop pretending that a man can become a woman and vice versa. People can only become freaks, not the other sex.
I remember back in the 1970s, before corn syrup became the primary sweetener used in commercial foods, the health food people said that fructose was healthier than cane sugar because fructose was a “natural” sugar found in fruits while cane sugar was evil processed sugar.
It’s only after mass production of corn syrup sweetener that the health food people started saying the opposite.
This is just a case of whatever seems to be the most “artificial” mass-produced food being picked on, even though all sugars are harvested from natural plants. For the same reason, soda is demonized over fruit juice because soda seems artificial and fruit juice seems natural, but they are both equally unhealthy (assuming that liquids loaded up with sugar are unhealthy).
* * *
One of the most important things I learned from Paul Fussell is that sweet foods are prole, so I have made a conscious effort to eat less sweet food in order to be higher class.
Chris Ruddy from Newsmax, who is pro-Trump, argues that Trump should abandon the stupid Paul Ryan plan and instead support expanded Medicaid among other things.
This would be smart for Trump do to. I’ve previously warned that Trump could lose reelection in 2020 “if the repeal of Obamacare becomes a mess and PR disaster,” and Chris Ruddy is right, Trump is walking into a trap by letting TruCon hacks, whose business-as-usual platform Republican primary voters rejected in favor of Trump, set healthcare policy.
And I definitely agree with Chris Ruddy that insurance companies are ripping off Americans and we should stop helping them do that.
A leading Republican congressman suggested on Tuesday that lower-income Americans stop buying new iPhones and “invest in their own health care.” The comment by Rep. Jason Chaffetz of Utah came a day after the GOP rolled out a new Obamacare replacement bill that could increase their insurance costs.
The bill also contains a big new financial treat for health insurance companies.
The Republican plan calls for allowing insurers to write off as a business expense the entire amount of their executives’ salaries on their taxes, and not just the first $500,000, as is the case now under the Affordable Care Act.
Even ignoring the outrage of proposing a tax cut for people making more than $500,000/year at the expense of benefits for poor people, this quote demonstrates 19th-century economic thinking. iPhone sales are mostly a value transference business, and to the extent that production of additional iPhones creates jobs, it creates them in China. So if people stopped buying iPhones, it wouldn’t free up any resources in the United States that could then be directed towards healthcare.
* * *
Magnavox says: “the amount of waste in the US health care industry completely dwarfs the amount spent on iphones by all classes”
mikeca says: “Most of the self employed working class people that I know do not have smart phones. They have old flip phones which you can get for almost free with a wireless plan. Even if they were buying a brand new $800 iPhone every year (which they are not), you are not going to get health insurance that covers anything for $800 a year.”
I say: I personally need to have an iPhone if I ever plan on going back to work in digital product management, since how could I manage products for mobile devices if I don’t even use a smartphone?
I also say: Having a phone of some sort is a necessity to be part of our society (although it doesn’t need to be the latest and most expensive iPhone). Most employers expect you to have a phone, for example. Most people who need to save money have just have a cell phone and not a landline. Poor people are more likely to own Androids which are cheaper, so they are already not buying the most expensive phones. There are many cheap-ass Androids for under $100 (although they probably suck compared to iPhone).
A new iPhone SE is $399, and that’s still less expensive than a single month of health insurance for a single person.
* * *
There’s the point of view that the Congressman’s statement was merely a metaphor for poor people foolishly spending their money. Nevertheless, this was obviously a huge gaffe on the part of the Congressman. Way bigger than Mitt Romney’s 47% gaffe. So huge that it jeopardizes the chances that Republicans will have the political support to repeal Obamacare (not saying that I agree with repealing Obamacare).
According to Bloomberg, instead of “repealing” Obamacare, some Republicans are now talking about “repairing” it: an admission that Obamacare was actually what Americans wanted, and if only Republicans in Congress and the Big Insurance lobby hadn’t stuffed it full of poison pills, it could have been much better healthcare in the first place.
This also demonstrates that Republicans (especially Republican voters, but also Republican politicians) primarily hated Obamacare because it came from Obama.
Based on the Washington Post exclusive, it sounds more and more like Trump plans to replace Obamacare with Trumpcare and not just repeal it, the latter being what Republicans have been bitterly trying to do (in protest) for the last several years.
It still remains to be seen if the final proposal matches the rhetoric. In the past, Trump would say one thing, then conservative hacks would say something else when they posted stuff on his campaign website.
If we do get a Trumpcare proposal, we will see that the vast majority of Republican voters, as well as most Republican legislators, hated Obamacare not because they hated expansion of government, but because they hated Obama.
On the other hand, if Democrats are united in opposition to Trumpcare, even though it has the same goals of Obamacare, because they hate Trump, and a few “principled” Republicans like Rand Paul vote against it, then Trumpcare could have problems getting through Congress.
I have found too many male doctors to be annoyingly arrogant, a trait a lot rarer in female doctors.
Therefore, on that basis alone, I recommend female doctors.
This scholarly research found a statistically significant difference in outcomes of hospitalized medicare patients depending on whether they were treated by a male or female physician.
The study then assumes that his must be because the women are better doctors than the men!
I think it’s more likely that patients were not randomly assigned to doctors, but rather when a patient seemed to be in very bad shape, that patient was more likely to be assigned to a male doctor who was viewed by the hospital staff as more competent than female doctors. (I’m not saying that the male doctors ARE more competent, but that gender bias, which is well documented by SJW-types, causes hospital staff to think so and that influences assignments.) Or perhaps the male doctors were more likely to self-assign themselves to the worst-off patients because they liked to challenge themselves.
Without an investigation into whether doctor assignments were random, this “research” is meaningless and bogus.
As a caveat, the study does talk about randomness of assignment, but they reach the easy conclusion that they are smart enough to determine that assignments are random merely based on the statistical dataset they were working with.